Friday, February 11, 2011

Predicting the Future is HARD!

Way, way off topic. But I love everything about the following.

Since Obama was already congratulating himself for Mubarak's departure, this is an utter humiliation of the American president -- and as a consequence, a terrible weakening of America, whose powerlessness is now apparent for all to see.

Why oh why did America elect an uppity President, wails Bonkers Mel (at the Spectator, but I don't trust her not to make the odd alteration).

The consequences of this debacle for the free world are likely to be disastrous.

What debacle would that be now?

It's typical Mad Mel, all the favourite cliches (someone ends up under a bus, whether thrown or pushed, something else is a joke, although evidence is scant that Mel knows what the word means, and so on), only the order is new, and then not very. And, hey ho, ALL her research comes from other media and not, like books, and weird stuff. To wit, Politico:

During a House Intelligence Committee hearing Thursday, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called Egypt’s branch of the Muslim Brotherhood movement ‘largely secular.’

In response to questioning from Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) about the threat posed by the group, Clapper suggested that the Egyptian part of the Brotherhood is not particularly extreme and that the broader international movement is hard to generalize about.

My bolding. Mel snorts (I could get the hang of this journalism, you know):

As further backup for the brilliant assessment provided by the Director of National Unintelligence, here is a video clip of the west’s favourite moderate Islamist and apologist for the moderate Muslim Brothers, Tariq Ramadan (grandson of their founder, Hassan al Banna) praying very moderately for Allah to ‘strike down’ his enemies which include Jews, Russians and Americans.

Quite right, because an apologist who isn't in a given party or movement or even in the same country and not connected with them in any way -- apart from being Muslim, like about a billion others -- is a simply brilliant guide to what that movement believes or endorses.

As I said, way off topic. But it's Friday, and I'm happy. Besides, she deserves pity more than censure.


Anonymous Piggy said...


Mel in 2003

"Stunning speech by President Bush who shows he now understands that the doctrine of appeasing the world's tyrants, fascists and terror-sponsors, which was the foundation-stone of western pre-9/11 realpolitik, was the main reason why the free world is now being threatened by systematic terror. Far from wanting to impose western-style settlements on the Islamic world, he accepts that giving Muslim peoples their voice may well mean Islamic states."

2/11/2011 07:19:00 PM  
Anonymous gastro george said...

Mad. Mel. Fish. Barrel.

2/11/2011 07:58:00 PM  
Blogger Chardonnay Chap said...

That's our Mel, as if reification didn't have a bad enough name already.

It seems to me that if Muslims wish to reconcile personal freedom with governments based on their religious precepts, they are going to have to separate church and state

This is true, but it doesn't need 'Muslims'. It's just true for everyone, and is better looked on at the state level. If you want personal freedom of belief, you need to live in a nation which separates church and state. It's a bit much to ask all Muslims to do this NOW. Some do already (many of those in 'the West' for example). And some probably don't want to, just like religious nutters everywhere. Mel treats Muslims as homogenous, and she write about 'a reformation' singular. But in the West, the separation took quite a long time (Sarah Palin believes that it hasn't yet). We've still got the Queen defending the faith.

Instead, the west has backed tyranny, as long as it was opposed to the Soviet Union and ensured the supply of oil to western economies.

Well, she is spot on there, though I'd prefer 'or' to 'and'.

And that is why Tony Blair, who (Iraq apart) stands for appeasement of terror (Ireland, Israel), is beating his head against a brick wall in fruitlessly urging Bush to restart the Middle East road map process.

Blair is wrong about many things, but the Northern Ireland peace process did work. You really do catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

For if Israel is under existential threat, and is in the front line of the west's defence against Islamic fascism, Bush needs to translate his admirable words into deeds against those sponsors of terror whose appeasement he so rightly condemns.

Does the 'if' carry over to 'is in the front line...'? Because it's possible that Israel isn't under existential threat (another Mel reliable) and the front line bit is just WTF to me. Israel's being in the front line didn't stop 9/11, 7/7, and all the other attacks. Those sponsors include the Saudis (as every fule no), who she thinks Obama should not have offended.

George is right, of course. Mad Mel is mad is not worthy of this blog - and that's a low bar. But why do professional bloggers get paid for this sort of crap? I think the CIA really do know more about the Muslim Brotherhood than Politico writers.

2/11/2011 08:13:00 PM  
Blogger flyingrodent said...

But in the West, the separation took quite a long time.

And entailed the deaths of millions of people in wars of religion from Martin Luther on, no less.

I'm unsure whether it's fair to add WWI and II to Christianity's long list of wars and genocides, but every time I hear one of these why won't Muslims be more like us tolerant Christians stuff, I move further towards chalking up every war and genocide in the history of the western world to Jesus.

2/11/2011 08:21:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has Mel ever heard of the seige of Munster? Calvin's Geneva? [Some of] The Muslims are indeed having a Reformation right now: that's the problem. Took us 200 years to get Quakers, and we still have Paisley...

Chris Williams

2/11/2011 09:43:00 PM  
Blogger john b said...

I'm unsure whether it's fair to add WWI and II to Christianity's long list of wars and genocides

Not sure how you can really justify that one.

WWI = one Protestant country, two Catholic countries and one Orthodox country vs one Protestant empire and one Catholic empire (each with a large minority of the population that was the other...)

WWII = One Protestant country, one Catholic country and one Orthodox country vs... well... one strange mix of Christian tradition, Pagan tradition and personality cult.

2/12/2011 01:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Alex said...

The Holocaust doesn't happen without 2000 years of Christian antisemitism.

Don't know where he's going with WWI though.

2/12/2011 06:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Cian said...

Actually it would be impossible for the Muslims to have a reformation. It doesn't make sense, any more than it would make sense to talk of a modern Lutheran reformation. Who exactly is the pope in this situation? What exactly constitutes the Catholic church. There is no single authority. You choose a religious authority to follow (even in Iran).

Some religious authorities are very progressive (in western terms), others not so much. Some ideas that we would consider modern are actually very old (certainly older than their genesis in Europe), other ideas that we consider "ancient" Islamism are very modern (Saudi Arabia's official beliefs, for example - together with the stuff that inspired Al-Quaeda and followers).

The closest to this is the Iranian mullahs, who are seen as dangerously heretical by other shi'ites. Shi'ites (other than Iran, hence the heresy) think that church and state should be seperate.

2/12/2011 11:02:00 AM  
Blogger flyingrodent said...

Don't know where he's going with WWI though.

Generally based on the criteria - if we're chalking up everything bad that's happened in the Middle East to the wackiness of the locals' religion, it seems only fair to point out that the west is only so nice and liberal because it spent such a massive amount of time, energy and capital on industrial-standard death and destruction.

That's not to say that WWI & II came out of religion, any more than repression across the ME springs solely from the pages of the Koran. If we're applying unfair criteria to them, why not us?

2/12/2011 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger ejh said...

I do generally understand what people mean when they talk about Islam not having had a Reformation - though I also appreciate the technical point Cian raises - but I might point out that among the reasons it didn't is that it had imperialism instead. Externally-imposed military rule (or any other kind, for that mater) doesn't do a lot for the philosophical development of the peoples imposed upon, I reckon, for a whole variety of reasons.

2/13/2011 07:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Cian said...

well its normally a good way to filter out pundits who are completely clueless. talks about an Islamic reformation.

Which is about 99.9999% of them.

2/15/2011 05:22:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home